The Rest of the Civil Docket in Plain English

Posted Thu, December 31st, 2009 7:43 pm by Tom Goldstein

This is a catch-all group of civil cases the Court is hearing this Term. There are important cases to the business community, such as the Bilski patent case. The Court also has an unusually high number of cases regarding the processes by which the federal courts operate.

Click the links below to scroll directly to cases of that subcategory, or browse the entire list below them.

Question presented: Federal law imposes duties on investment managers regarding the funds they manage. The question presented is whether a manager violates that duty by charging excessive fees if the fund's directors were not misled about the fees.

Question presented: The federal antitrust laws prohibit some “collective” action by “separate” entities. The question presented is whether that provision applies when NFL teams work together in marketing gear, or are the teams in that context instead a “single entity.”

Question presented: When may federal courts hear a suit by foreign plaintiffs alleging that they were harmed by securities fraud in a transaction conducted overseas but that nonetheless has ties to the United States?

Question presented: Federal law grants authors a copyright even if they don't register the work with the government, but forbids copyright infringement suits unless the author has applied for a copyright. The question presented is whether a court may approve a court settlement that applies to both registered and unregistered works?

Decision: Federal law provides for the binding arbitration of labor disputes involving railroads. The Court had agreed to decide whether (i) a court may overturn an arbitration award on the ground that it was unconstitutional, and (ii) the arbitration ruling in this case was in fact unconstitutionally retroactive. But it did not rule on those issues because it concluded that the arbitration violated the relevant federal statute.

Question presented: When a third party challenges an agreement between an energy company and a utility over the rate the utility will pay for electricity, should federal law presume that the rate is legal?

Question presented: The federal False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to bring suits alleging that the defendant defrauded the federal government, but there is an exception for claims that are based on information that was already published in reports and investigations. The question presented is whether the exception applies to state and local reports and investigations, or is limited to those by the federal government.

Question presented: Under a treaty signed by the United States, a child taken from his home country in violation of a “right of custody” generally must be returned to that country. In this case, the child was taken from a parent who did not have physical custody but had a “ne exeat order,” which prohibited taking the child out of the country without the parent’s permission. The question presented is whether a “ne exeat order” is a “right of custody” under the treaty, so that the child must be returned.

Question presented: A federal law requires notices sent by debt collectors to identify the creditor and the amount of the debt. The question is whether a debt collector violates the statute if it does not provide that notice, but it did not know that it was required to do so by the law.

Question presented: Federal law regulates when an oil company can terminate gas station franchises. The question presented is: can a station sue only if the oil company has formally “terminated” it, rather than for less severe action that would be a “constructive termination.”

Question presented: An employee health plan often has an administrator who must interpret its terms, and in some circumstances courts will defer to the administrator’s reading. The question is whether a court should defer not only to interpretations that administrators adopt when deciding claims for benefits but also interpretations they adopt when litigating a lawsuit in court.

Question presented: An administrative body known as the National Labor Relations Board makes rulings on federal labor law. The question is whether a Board ruling issued by only two board members is legal.

Decision: The Supreme Court held that a party cannot immediately appeal from a federal trial judge's ruling that a he must turn over evidence because it is not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Question presented: Plaintiffs sometimes sue for violations of state law in federal court. In such cases, state law decides the substantive claims, but federal law decides the procedures by which the case will be decided. The question presented is whether a state law forbidding that certain state claims be decided in a class action is procedural, so that it does not apply in federal court.

Question presented: Challenges to immigration actions (such as deportation orders) are heard by the Board of Immigration Appeals before going to a federal appeals court. The question presented is: when the Board denies an individual's request to "reopen" one of its rulings, can the court of appeals review that ruling?

Question presented: Federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear certain cases between plaintiffs and defendants that are citizens of "diverse" states. For a company, citizenship depends on its "principal place of business." The question presented is what specific test determines the citizenship of companies that operate around the country.

Question presented: Can "class actions" "“ representative suits where a few individuals act on behalf of a large number of similarly situated plaintiffs "“ proceed in arbitrations when the arbitration agreement does not expressly authorize them?

Question presented: In this case, the employer wants to sue over a collective bargaining agreement signed by a local union rather than its international. The questions are, under federal labor law, whether (1) a federal court or instead an arbitrator should decide whether there is an actual agreement, and (2) the employer should sue the international or instead the local.

Question presented: When a party wins a lawsuit against the government and is awarded her attorneys’ fees, do those fees first go to the party or instead straight to the lawyer? The question matters because if they go to the party, the government can deduct money the party owes it (for example, to pay off back taxes).

Question presented: A federal law, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, governs health insurance plans for federal employees, which are often administered by private contractors. The question presented is: must an employee’s suit against a contractor relating to his insurance plan be heard in federal court, or can it be heard in state court?

Question presented: May plaintiffs bring a suit in federal court alleging that a state tax exemption benefiting other parties but not them is unconstitutionally discriminatory?

———————

Bankruptcy

———————

Title:Schwab v. Reilly

Docket: 08-538

Argument date: November 3, 2009

Question presented: When a debtor files for bankruptcy, she must declare the value of her property, at which point the creditor to whom she is indebted can object to this declared amount. The question presented is: if the creditor does not object, and the debtor later realizes that the property is worth more than the declared amount, can the creditor collect the difference in value?

Question presented: Federal law requires that a debtor in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy pay her "projected disposable income" to her creditors during the period of her bankruptcy plan. The question presented is how to calculate "projected disposable income" when it is known that the debtor's future income will be substantially higher or lower than her past income.

———————

Original Action

In an “Original Jurisdiction” case, one state sues another directly in the Supreme Court, rather than starting the case in a trial court.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. ComerThe Missouri Department of Natural Resources' express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect or other religious entity violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc., under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by denying the church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status.

Hernández v. Mesa(1) A Bivens remedy is not available when there are "special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress," and the court recently clarified in Ziglar v. Abbasi what constitutes a special factor counselling hesitation; the court of appeals should consider how the reasoning and analysis in Ziglar bear on the question whether the parents of a victim shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent may recover damages for his death; (2) It would be imprudent for the Supreme Court to decide Jesus Hernandez’s Fourth Amendment claim when, in light of the intervening guidance provided in Abbasi, doing so may be unnecessary to resolve this particular case; and (3) with respect to Hernandez’s Fifth Amendment claim, because it is undisputed that the victim's nationality and the extent of his ties to the United States were unknown to the agent at the time of the shooting, the en banc court of appeals erred in granting qualified immunity based on those facts.

Conference of September 25, 2017

Collins v. Virginia Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

Butka v. Sessions Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in this case by holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the review sought was limited to assessing the legal framework upon which the sua sponte request was made.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.